The  Genesis 


1.1 


OF  THE 


Whig  Party  in  Illinois 


BY 


C.  M.  THOMPSON 


University  of  Illinois 


Reprinted  from  the  Transactions 

of 

The   Illinois   State   Historical   Society 

1912 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest   Date   stamped   below. 


University  of  Illinois  Library 


OCI  1119: 


^  "^  <■-, 


H  -8  net) 


MflP  '^  0  1981 

MA.p      9,  ic(qi 

FEB  0  8  1982 

JUL  1  3  1|93 
AUG  1  3  1)93 


5 


ihi 


I.IC.I-    II  II 


[';M  yi«.V' Arly 


I 


1^ 


The  Genesis 


LIBir/MY 

OF  THE 
UMnTRSITY  OF  ILLINOrSb 


OF  THE 


Whig-  Party  in  Illinois 


•;'.t 


BY 


C.  M.  THOMPSON 


University  of  Illinois 


Reprinted  from  the  Transactions 

of 

The    Illinois    State    Historical    Society 

1912 


Sprinqfibld,  III. 

ILLINOIS  State  Journal  Co.,  State  Printers 

19  13 


T3^ 


C\ 


GEXESIS  OF  THE  WHIG  PAinv  IX  IT.IJXOIS. 


^JlyC.  M.  Thompson,  Univeriity  of  Illinois.) 


If  iiicctinfjs  uT  this  kind  juc  t<>  Ik-  pruthictivi'  of  tlu'  j;ivati'st  aiiioimi 
of  good,  those  attending  and  taking  part  must  have  no  liesitanoy  in 
being  critical,  for  they,  of  all  people,  show  by  their  presence  here,  that 
they  are  vitally  interested  in  the  history  of  our  State:  and  in  no  better 
way  can  the  chaff,  which  has  too  long  encunil>ered,  be  separated  from 
the  grain.  Thus  the  writer  invites  the  most  searching  criticism,  in  the 
sincere  hoj)e  that  several  new  ideas  expressed  in  this  paper  may  be  dis- 
)  roved,  if  they  are  erroneous. 

The  political  leaders  in  Illinois  were  divided  into  two  factions 
even  before  the  State  was  admitted  to  the-  Union  in  1818,  and  despite 
tilt'  fart  that  a  majoiity  of  tlu-  lead('r>  of  thcsf  factions  was  dead",  and 
many  of  the  issues  over  which  they  struggled  forgotten,  when  the  term 
W'liig  came  to  be  used  to  designate  one  of  the  great  political  parties, 
there  is  a  continuity  of  principles  and  personnel,  striking  enough  to 
warrant  the  belief,  tliat  territorial  political  alignments  had  consiilerable 
intluences  in  determining  the  make-up  of  the  Whig  and  iKMUocralic 
p.nlic.t  in  Illinois.' 

'As  is  generally  well  kntiwn,  the  hader  of  one  faction  was  Governor 
Xinian  Edwards,  and  supporting  him  were  XathanicI  I'ojk?,  Daniel 
%  l'op«'  Cook.  Thoma>  ('.  Hrowiic.  and  Picrn-  Mt-nanl.  The  op|»osiii;: 
.  yfaction  was  under  the  nomiiud  leadership  of  Shadrach  Bond,  with 
whom  w«'re  associated  Jesse  B.- Thomas,  Elias  Kent  Kane,  John  Mc- 
Ijcan,  and  Michael  Jones.  With  the  coming  of  statehood,  and  the  con- 
sequent increase  in  the  nundx'r  of  oflices  to  Ik*  filled,  evidence  at  hand  • 
points  to  a  reconciliation  of  factions  on  the  basis  of  a  division  of  puijlic 
emoluments.  Every  factional  leader  of  the  first  rank  received  oflice; 
Bond  and  Menard  became  Governor  and  Lieutenant  Governor,  re- 
sptctivi'ly  :  JoiK's  was  eleeted  to  the  State  Senate:  Thonvas  and  I*]dwards 
were  chosen  United  States  Senators:  Phillijis  and  Browne  were  given 
places  on  the  bench  of  the  State  Supreme  Court,  while  Pojje  became  a 
member  of  the  United  States  judiciary;  Kane  was  appointed  Secretary 
of  State  by  Governor  Bond  :  Mcfvi-an  was  elected  to  Congress;  and  Cook, 
who  was  the  unsuccessful  aspirant  for  tiie  sole  congressional  scat  to 
which  Illinois  was  then  entitled,  was  appointed  Attorney  General./ 

The  year  1810.  saw  a  revival  of  the  old  struggle.     Edwards,  whose 

term  as  I'nited  States  Senator  expired  March  4,  1819.  was  re-elected, 

•-,  but  not  without  considerable  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Bond  faction, 

^.:  which  supported  Jones  for  the  place.     Later  in  the  year  Cook  and  Mc- 

**'  Tx'an,  for  the  second  time,  contested  for  congressional  honors,  with  Cook 


the  victor,  duo  to  his  oppocitiun  to  the  proposed  Missouri  Compromise 
as  well  as  to  his  tremendous  ])ersonal  influence  over  the  voters. 

In  1820  the  Bond  faction  brought  out  Kane  as  Cook's  opponent. 
Both  candidates  expressed  themselves  as  favorable  to  the  proposition  to 
make  Missouri  a  state  without  restrictions.  The  election  resulted  in  a 
landslide  for  Cook,  who  received  the  support  of  the  old  Edwards  faction, 
as  well  as  that  of  the  lately  arrived  settlers  in  the  northern  counties. 

The  August  election  of  18'32,  witnessed  a  general  clash  between  the 
factions.  Both  Coles  and  Phillips,  who  were  candidates  for  Governor 
in  that  year,  were  distasteful  to  the  Edwards  people,  so  much  so  that 
Edwards,  through  Hooper  Warren,  brought  out  Thomas  C.  Browne  as 
a  candidate.  The  contest  was  very  close.  Coles  carried  the  northern 
counties,  in  which,  on  the  whole,  the  people  were  lately  arrived  and 
hence  not  adlierents  of  either  of  the  old  factions;  Browne  and  Phillips 
divided  the  vote  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State,  the  former  being 
supported  by  the  Edwards  faction,  while  Phillips  very  generally  received 
the  votes  of  the  Bondites.  Both  factions  voted  irrespective  of  their 
slavery  predilections,  and  the  generally  accepted  opinion  that  Browne 
was  brought  out  as  a  stalking  horse  by  the  sla-\^ry  element  in  an  attempt 
to  elect  Phillips,  is  not  supported  by  reliable  evidence.  Cook,  who  was 
no  less  zealous  in  his  opposition  to  slavery  than  was  Coles,  carried 
seventeen  counties,  of  which  number  eight  supported  Phillips  or  Browne. 
The  inconsistency  of  the  position  of  those  who  contend  that;  the  guber- 
natorial election  was  on  the  basis  of  slavery,  and  that  Browne  was  a 
slavery  candidate,  is  further  shown  by  the  fact  that  Jlooper  Warren,  an 
unoomproiiii>ing  o]iponent  of  slavery  in  any  form,  su|)porto(l  Browne's 
candidacy.  In  this  election  began  a  third  party  with  its  principal 
strength  in  Sangamon  and  adjoining  counties,  and  a  party  which  was  to 
continue  for  more  than  a  decade  to  hold  the  balance  of  power  between 
the  various  factions  of  the  Democratic  party.) 

~*'  The  Bond  faction  was  characterized  by  the  great  number  of  am- 
bitious politicians  within  its  ranks.  Although  this  faction  was  defeated 
in  the  gubernatorial  election  of  1822,  it  succeeded  in  electing  a  majority 
to  the  General  Assembly.  Being  favorably  disposed  toward  slavery  the 
members  of  that  faction,  aided  by  not  an  inconsiderable  number  of 
'others  who  favored  any  plan  to  worry  the  new  executive,  succeeded  in 
carrying  through  the  General  Assembly  in  February,  1823.  the  famous 
proposition  to  call  a  Constitutional  Convention. 

The  election  of  1824,  which  decided  this  momentous  question,  re- 
sulted in  a  complete  victory  for  the  anti-slavery  forces.  Not  only  was 
the  convention  proposition  defeated  by  a  large  majority,  but  Cook, 
ao^ainst  wliom  the  convention ists  had  pitted  Governor  Bond,  was  elected 
to  Congress.  The  counties  that  had  su])ported  Coles  in  1822,  declared 
against  the  convention,  but  the  anti-convention  vote  in  those  counties 
would  have  been  of  no  avail  without  the  assistance  of  the  anti-slavery 
element  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State.  Although  Coles  liad  received 
but  4  per  cent  of  the  entire  vote  cast  in  Alexander  Counfy  in' 1822,  the 
convention  forces  were  able  to  carry  that  county  by  only  a  small  ma- 
jority; and  the  election  returns  of  Gallatin,  Johnson,  Franklin.  Wayne, 
Eandolph  and  JeiTerson  counties  show  that  hundreds  Avho  voted  for 
Browne  or  Phillips  in  1822,  voted  two  years  later  against  the  call  for  a 


convention  to  amend  the  State  Constitution.  Jn  none  at  the  counties 
named  had  the  Coles  vote  been  greater  than  15  per  cent,  yet  the  vote 
against  shivery  varied  from  18  \)eT  cent  in  Gallatin  to  45  per  cent  in 
Randolph  County.  The  counties  of  Lawrence  and  T'nion,  which  had 
given  Browne  and  Phillips  together  more  than  82  per  cent  of  their  entire 
vote  in  1822,  two  years  later  rejected  the  convention  proposition  by  a 
vote  of  three  to  two.  On  the  whole,  communities  favoring  the  call  for 
a  convention,  supported  Bond  for  Congress,  the  notable  exceptions  being 
in  those  in  which  Cook  had  a  strong  i>ersonal  following  that  clun<T  to 
him  despite  his  utterances  against  the  extension  of  slavery.  • 

On  account  of  the  all-absorbing  shivery  (|ii(stioiu  tho  Presidcntal 
election  of  1824,  received  scanty  attention  at  the  hands  of  the  voters. 
While  contemporary  accounts  differ  as  to  the  relation  between  the  con- 
vent ionist  and  anti-conventionists  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Presidential 
candidate  on  the  other,  the  vote  indicates  that  Adams  and  Clay  had 
their  greatest  strength  in  those  counties  in  which  the  anti-conventionists 
had  a  majority,  while  Jackson's  supporters  wero  on  the  whole  sujiporters 
of  the  proposition  to  call  a  convention.  Thus  there  se<>ms  to  l)e  estab- 
lished by  the  election  of  1824,  a  line  which  divided  roughly  the  voters 
into  two  groujis,  each  having  a  clearly  marked  preference  for  certain 
men  and  measures.  One  group,  which  comjirised  the  voters  of  the 
northern  counties  and  the  Edwards  strongholds  in  the  southern  ])art  of 
the  State,  supported  Cook,  .Adams  or  Clay,  and  opposed  the  Convention, 
wliile  flie  olher  group,  which  was  dominated  bv  Bond.  Kane.  "NfcTiCan  and 
'J'bomas,  supported  liond.  .Iacks<»n  or  Ciawford.  and  fav«»rc(l  (be  Con- 
venlion. 

VAs  in  1822-4,  so  was  the  General  Assembly  of  1821-fi  coniplelelv 
dominal«'(l  by  the  Bond  faction.  As  a  result  of  this  political  aniliation. 
two"  of  the  leaders  of  that  faction,  and  zealous  slavery  men,  McLean  and 
Kane,  were  elected  to  the  I'nited  States  Senat<'.  A  writer  on  this  period 
has  said  concerning  this  election  that  "there  is  nothing  stranger  than  this 
in  our  political  history."  'J'he  explanation  for  such  a  seemingly  strange 
paradox  rests  not  upon  a  study  of  the  Convention  parties  but  rather 
upon  older  i)olilical  alignments.  The  majority  of  the  Legislature  that 
elected  McLean  and  Kane,  was  not  necessarily  pro-.slavery  and  ]>ro- 
conveniion  because  it  elected  men  of  that  belief  to  office,  for  the  issue 
of  slavery  and  convention  had  ceased  to  have  life  after  the  August  elec- 
tion in  182  1.  Tlie  majority  was  a  r>ond  faction  majority,  and  nothing 
was  more  natural  than  to  honor  its  two  greatest  leaders  by  electing  them 
to  the  United  States  Senate!  ^ 

'  One  of  the  central  figures  in  the  election  by  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives of  Adams  to  the  inesidency  in  1825,  was  Cook,  sole  Congress- 
man from  Illinois.  Co(»k  is  said  to  bav<'  declared  Itefore  the  prcsi(iental 
election  in  1824,  that  if  the  selection  of  a  president  should  devolve  upon 
Ihe  House,  he  would  cast  his  vote  for  the  candidate  that  received  a 
majority  of  the  popular  vote  in  Illinois.  Jackson  carried  two  electoral 
districts,  the  Second  and  Third,  but  neither  he  nor  any  olher  candidate 
received  a  majority  at  the  general  election.  As  a  result  of  this  inde- 
cisive vote.  Cook  felt  himself  free  to  use  his  own  judgment  in  making 
a  selection  from  the  three  candidates  before  the  House,  and  for  various 


and  \alid. causes,  one  oi.  which  was  liis  acliuiration  for  tlie  man,  he  cast 
tlie  vote  of  Illinois  for  Adanis.^ 

^  The  election  of  Adams,  or  better  to  say  the  defeat  of  Jackson, 
determined  largely  the  political  alignment  in  the  United  States  for  the 
next  thirty  years,  and  on  acconnt  of  Cook's  vote,  is  this  statement  par- 
ticularly true  of  conditions  in  Illinois.  As  soon  as  the  people  learned 
through  the  medium  of  Jackson's  astute  managers,  that  tlie  old  hero 
had  been  cheated  ont  of  his  rights  and  the  will  of  the  people  had  been 
thwarted,  by  a  corrupt  bargain  between  Adams?  and  Clay,  they  rallied 
to  the  -lackson  standard.  Cook's  close  alliliation  with  the  old  anti- 
fouvcntion  party  had  the  effect  of  throwing  headlong  into  the  Jackson 
(■am])  iiis  o))j)oncnts.  who.  nn  I  lie  whole,  had  bccti  conveiitionists  and  wixi 
owed  allegiance  to  Bond,  Kane  and  McLean.  The  Edwards  faction, 
which  had  been  in  temporary  alliance  only  with  the  anti-conventionists, 
and  which,  after  the  August  election  of  1824,  had  set  about  to  reorgan- 
ize uj^on  old  lines,  very  generally  favored  Jackson's  candidacy,  and 
Cook's  vote  for  Adams  alienated  many  of  his  oldest  and  best  friends. 
The  Coles  party  had  voted  for  Adams,  and  his  election  by  the  House  met 
the  approbation  of  that  element."!- 

■)(  Thus  growing  out  of  the-  convention  contest  of  1824,  and  the  presi- 
dential election  of  1825,  were  three  more  or  less  distinct  parties:  the 
ultra,  or,  as  was  more  familiarly  called  "the  whole  hog''  Jackson  party; 
a  party  favoring  Jackson's  candidacy,  the  members  of  wdiich  were  gen- 
erally known  as  "milk  and  cider"  Jackson  men;  and  finally  the  anti- 
.lackson  party,  which  was  confined  principally  to  the  northern  counties. 
Although  the  lines  are  not  hard  and  fast,  one  may  say  with  confidence 
that  the  "whole  hog"  and  "milk  and  cider"  factions  of  the  Jackson  party 
were  continuations  of  the  old  Bond  and  Edwards  factions  respectively, 
ami  that  the  anti-Jackson  party  was  made  up  of  the  newer  elements, 
which  knew  nothing  of  the  political  alignments  of  earlier  days. 

The  o-ubernatorial  election  of  1826,  resulted  in  a  victory  for  a 
])oritical  coalition  of  the  anti-Jackson  party  and  the  "milk  and  cider" 
faction  of  the  Jackson  party.  Edwards  w-as  elected  governor,  but  the 
closeness  of  the  election  indicates  quite  clearly  that  the  anti-Jackson 
party  was  hopelessly  in  the  minority,  and  that  its  only  hope  for  success 
lay  in  playing  off  the  factions  of  the  opposition  one  against  the  other. 
At  the  same  time  Cook  M'as  beaten  by  Joseph  Duncan,  a  young  "whole 
hog"  Jackson  man,  who  had  a  good  military  record  behind  him.  The 
defection  of  the  Cook  supporters  was  general  all  over  the  State.  A 
county  hero  and  there  gave  him  an  increased  majority  over  1824,  but 
this  was  olTset  by  a  few  oIIum-  counties  which  showed  a  marked  falling 
off  in  their  support.  Cook  uniformly  ran  behind  Pklwards  except  in 
those  counties  where  his  popularity  still  exerted  its  old  time  influence; 
and  it  is  on  account  of  this  tremendous  influence  that  he  was  able  to 
make  a   valiant  tight  against  overwhelming  odds. 

.  In  the  presidental  ele(tion  o.f  1S28.  less,  than  lifleen  thousand  votes 
Avero  cast  out  of  a  population  numbering  considerably  over  one  hundred 
llidiisanil,  and  Jackson's  majority  of  almost  live  thousand  is  evidence 
of  a  tem|)orary  union  of  the  two  dackscm  factions  in  support  of  his 
candidacy.  Tlie  "whole  hog"  candidate  for  Congress,  Duncan,  w^as 
elected  over  Ccorgc  Eorquer,  a  recognized  leader  of  the  moderate  Jack- 


I 


poll  faction,  and  a  close  porsonal  and  political  friend  of  Ciovcrnor 
I'Mwards.  The  apparent  inconsistence  in  selection  of  adherents  of 
dilFcrcnt  factions  raises  the  suspicion  tliat  the  Jackson  nianajiers  saw 
to  it  ihat  only  ultra  Jackson  men  shonhl  <xo  to  Congress;  it  also  go.-s 
a  long  way  in  demonstrating  the  political  sagacity  and  popularity  of 
Edwards  himself.V 

rj'he  next  "iuiieiiiatftrial  caiM}>aign  liegan  more  than  iwehi-  months 
hefore  the  election  in  IH'M).  'i'he  candidates  wcic  William  Kinnev,  rep- 
resenting tiie  'Svhole  hog"  Jackson  faction,  and  John  licynolds,  who, 
at  that  time,  was  a  confessed  "milk  and  cider''  Jackson  man.  Kinney, 
expecting  to  ride  into  ortice  on  a  wave  of  Jackson  enthusiasm,  was  ex- 
travagant in  his  jiraise  of  the  President.  Kcynolds  with  all  his  faults 
proved  that  he  was  a  hetter  politician  than  his  op{)onent  by  securing  the 
support  of  many  radical  Jacksonites,  without  alienating  that  element  in 
the  State  opposed  to  the  old  hero.  Keynolds'  strength  was  principally 
in  the  extreme  northern,  western  and  southern  jiarts  of  the  State,  and 
in  the  central  counties  of  Sangamon.  Morgan  and  Macon.  Despite  Kin- 
ney's defeat,  Duncan  who  was  no  less  a  radical  than  was  Kinney,  was 
-elec-led  ti»  Congress  hy  a  large  niajoiity.  'i'hu<  again  was  the  ra<li;-al 
wing  of  the  Jackson  party  hcatcn  hy  a  coalition  of  the  ''milk  and  cider" 
Jackson  men  and  the  anii-administralionists. 

During  the  six  years  following  the  State  election  of  18.">0  the 
j)olitical  alignments  in  Illinois  underwent  radical  changes.  'J'he  position 
occu])ied  hy  the  "milk  and  cider"  Jackson  element  was  not  onlv  illogical 
but  unteUiible,  and  its  ability  to  maintain  itself  as  an  organization  de- 
|x?nded  almost  entirely  upon  the  chance  election  of  two  of  its  leaders 
to  the  oHice  of  Governor.  Its  midway  position  between  the  radical 
Jackson  faction  on  the  one  han<l.  and  the  anti-Jackson  jiarty  on  the 
other,  made  it  a  convenient  and  fruitful  recruiting  ground  for  its  more 
extreme  ojiponent.  The  election  of  Jackson  for  a  second  term,  which 
was  a  complete  vindication  for  the  alfront  offered  the  old  hero  in  1825, 
served  to  cool  the  ardor  of  the  more  extnnie  sup|)orters  of  the  Trcvident, 
and  bring  them  int<i  more  complete  harmony  with  the  radical  members 
of  the  moderate  Jackson  party.  The  intrusion  of  Van  Burenism  into 
national  politics,  and  the  dogmatic  distribution  of  oflice  in  the  State  by 
the  national  administration,  tended  to  force  the  lukewarm  su])porters 
of  Jackson  into  the  ranks  of  the  opj)osition,  which  included  all  the 
elements  opposed  to  Jackson  and  Van  Buren.  and  Mhich  took  on  the 
name  Whig  in  1834.^' 

Thus  during  the  territorial  ])eriod  the  political  interests  of  the 
people  of  Illinois  were  taken  up  with  the  personal  strife  between  the 
two  factions,  one  headed  by  Governor  Edwards,  and  the  other  by  Shadrach 
Bond.  These  factional  contests  extended  over  into  the  period  of  state- 
htK)d.  but  with  the  attempt  to  introduce  slavery  into  the  State  in  1S23-4, 
new  elements  came  into  ])olitical  leadershi]i.  and  the  result  was  a  tem- 
jiorary  change  in  political  alignments.  On  the  whole  the  Bond  faction 
su]iported  the  proposition  to  Ic^sjalize  slavery,  while  the  Edwards  faction 
tenijiorarily  allied  itself  with  the  anti-slaverv  i)rirty  led  by  Governor 
Coles.  After  the  slavery  cpiestion  had  been  decisively  settled  in  1824. 
the  two  old  territorial  factions  underwent  a  reorganization  on  the  basis 
of  lovaltv  to  Jackson  and  his  advisers.  Bond  and  his  followers  becomincr 


8 

what  are  comnionly  known  as  "whole  hog"  Jackson  men,  the  Edwards 
faction  taking  a  more  moderate,  or  "milk  and  cider"  position.  The 
third  party,  which  had  made  its  appearance  first  in  support  of  Coles  in 
1833;  and  afterwards  in  opposition  to  the  proposition  to  call  a  conven- 
tion, became  the  Adams,  or  anti-Jackson  party,  and  it  was  around  this 
party  as  a  nucleus  that  the  later  Whig  party  grew.  During  the  decade 
I'oilowing  1.S34  the  "whole  liog"  Jackson  men  succeeded  in  electing  their 
candidate  for  Congress,  but  the  "milk  and  cider"  faction,  aided  by  the 
anti-Jackson  party,  won  every  gubernatorial  election  during  the  de- 
cade. In  the  course  of  time  the  moderate  Jackson  faction  began 
breaking  np.  The  more  radical  members  went  over  to  the  "whole  hog" 
faction,  which  was  growing  less  radical  in  its  views  and  these  two 
elements  uniting  became  the  nucleus  of  the  later  Democratic  party,  while 
the  extremely  moderate  "milk  and  cider"  Jackson  men  allied  themselves 
with  the  anti-Jackson  party. 

"^  One  of  the  forces  contributinu'  to  brino-  about  the  union  of  the  two 
.  Jackson  factions,  was  a  change  in  the  personnel  of  leadership.  Before 
1833  Edwards,  Bond,  Cook  and  McLean  were  dead;  Thomas,  Phillips 
and  Sloo  had  removed  from  the  State,  while  Browne,  Pope  and  Smith 
were  on  the  bench;  and  their  places  in  leadership  were  filled  witli  such 
men  as  John  Reynolds,  Adam  W.  Snyder,  and  others  who  knew  little 
about  the  old  animosities  between  the  leaders  and  cared  less. 

The  anti-Jackson  party  had  its  beginning,  although  nuconsciously, 
in  the  convention  contest  of  1823-4.  Its  first  accessions  were  from 
among  the  friends  of  Clay,  who  had  supported  the  convention  move- 
ment, but  who  believed  that  Jackson's  denunciation  of  Clay's  attitude 
toward  the  election  of  Adams  was  little  less  than  prescriptive.  The 
second  accession  came  principally  from  among  those  niembers  of  the 
Edwards  faction  who  considered  the  defeat  of  Cook  in  1826  as  a  trav- 
esty of  justice,  and  the  beginning  of  political  persecution.  The  high- 
handed manner  in  which  Jackson's  unofficial  advisers  carried  out 
measures  and  policies  caused  a  slight  defection  from  the  Jacksonian 
ranks,  the  most  notable  in  Illinois  being  Senator  Thomas.  Jackson's 
continued  opposition  to  federal  aid  for  internal  improvements  was 
another  cause  of  dissatisfaction,  which  resulted  in  alienating  support 
in  many  sections.  While  all  these  disturbing  elements  were  driving 
supporters  from  the  Jackson  party,  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that 
all  of  them  were  to  be  fonnd  immediately  in  the  ranks  of  the  anti- 
Jackson  party,  for  the  "milk  and  cider"  faction  served  as  a  sort  of  half- 
way house  for  those  who,  from  personal  or  political  reasons,  feared  to 
come  out  openly  against  Jackson.  Beginning  with  the  opposition  to 
Van  Buren  as  Vice  Presidential  candidate  in  1831,  the  anti-Jackson 
party  received  a  constant  stream  of  recruits  into  its  ranks,  and  the 
attack  on  the  United  States  Bank,  followed  by  the  withdrawal  of  de- 
posits confirmed  the  growing  suspicion  of  many  thinking  men,  of  whom 
Joseph  Duncan  is  the  best  example,  that  Jackson's  administration,  not 
necessarily  Andrew  Jackson,  was  a  menace  to  the  well-being  of  the 
country.'' 

•  When  the  Whig  party  emerged  in  1834,  it  contained  all  these  fac- 
tions and  probably  more,  and  when  one  asks  why  the  Whigs  were  in- 


.  ,: 1  «.v  be  a  crowd  ratluT  tlian  a  compact  party  with  (letinite  purpo?o? 

tl;  >c'r  may  bo  found  by  pausinir  in  tlie  examination  of  the  1. 

and  diversified  parts  of  the  national  orffanization  and  giving  !?ome  at' 
tion  to  an  analysis  of  typical  geographical  units  such  as  was  I)linoi>!. 


— •.'  w  r 


'«>l<>rf|  JJcfi^' 


Mak« 


•Syraci 


P^r.  MM.  ?i. 


■^e.  \.  V 


1908 


f^ 


v:-^"'\ 


'*"-v.      ,«.-•■■        ■■'■..'' 

'v'  '  V- '  ■  ;■  .'■'■.  -"i' 


UNIVERSmr  OF  HJJNOIS-unBAN* 


